There’s been a lot of discussion about open textbooks, efficacy research, and student cost savings in the wake of this year’s #OpenEd15. The general theme of the conversation has been a concern that a focus on open textbooks confuses the means of open education with the end of open education. I’m compiling a Storify of examples of this really engaging writing - you should definitely take the time to read through it. I’m not responding directly to many of the points made in those posts here, but will in later follow-up posts. The overall criticism about ends / means confusion may or may not be true - it depends entirely on what you think the end or goal of open education should be. This is a conversation we almost never have in the field of open education. What is our long-term goal? What are we actually trying to accomplish? What kind of change are we trying to create in the world? The recently published OER strategy document, as informative as it is, reads more like a list of issues and opportunities than what Michael Feldstein describes as “rungs on a ladder of ambition.” Answering these questions leads to additional, more proximate concerns, like what specific steps do we need to take to get from here to there? In his #OpenEd15 keynote, Michael pushed our thinking with some additional questions, like “Who are we willing to let win?” As I have reflected on the post-conference conversation, and these larger questions about goals and purpose, I’ve decided to share some of my current best answers to these questions. (Disclaimer: my answers are guaranteed to evolve over time.) Your answers will almost certainly be different than mine - and that’s a good thing. I’m not sharing my answers as a way of claiming that they reflect the One True Answer. I’m sharing them in the hope that they will prompt you to think more deeply about your own answers. I find that nothing helps me clarify my thinking quite like reading others’ thinking I disagree with. As we all take the opportunity to ask and answer these important questions for ourselves, and to do that thinking publicly, out loud, who knows what might happen? ...

There is much that’s wrong with the educational technology (“edtech”) market. However, the title of an essay I read last week sums up the biggest problem as succinctly as possible: Caring Doesn’t Scale. This three-word sentence captures so much. First, it clearly communicates that “scale” has become a virtue. More importantly, it implies that old-fashioned virtues - things like caring about people - simply can’t compare in importance to modern values like scale. It would be an interesting thought exercise to re-examine the traditional seven virtues (prudence, justice, temperance, courage, faith, hope, and charity) and decide what each of their edtech replacements would be. However, I’m positive that in the updated version of the EdTech Bible, Corinthians 13:13 ends “the greatest of these is charity scale.” ...

There’s a great conversation - a debate, almost - occurring right now about two indisputable facts: The College Board recommends that students budget around $1200 per year for textbooks and supplies. Surveys of students indicate that they spend around $600 per year on textbooks. How can there be a debate about facts which no one disputes? The debate is around which fact is appropriate to cite under which circumstances. See excellent contributions to the discussion by Phil Hill, Mike Caulfield, Bracken Mosbacker, Phil Hill (again), and Mike Caulfield (again). ...

Steve Greenlaw published a brief meditation on grading today. This is a topic I’ve wrestled with ever since taking my courses on assessment design and psychometrics as a graduate student. Allow me to suggest, tongue in cheek, that perhaps our course syllabi are in need of a Truth in Grading Disclosure. It could come right after the section about grading, like this: Grading Your course grade will be determined as follows: ...

I’ve written about Pearson’s efficacy work in the past, and Ray Henderson’s twitter post this morning has prompted me to ponder and write a bit more. Just-in: @Pearson has just pubd white paper on their #Revel platform, as CEO @johnfallon committed. Thoughts? http://t.co/2bEIrin8lp — Ray Henderson (@readmeray) October 14, 2015 Let me start by applauding Pearson for following through on their commitment to focus more on efficacy. As page 3 of the report states, this platform is “the first product at Pearson to have an efficacy framework built in from the very beginning,” and the report seems to have been enabled by this integration. This is a tremendous first step. However, I think there are a few very simple things Pearson could do to greatly improve future efficacy work. Inasmuch as Pearson have invited us to Advocate for Efficacy, that is what I want to do for the remainder of this post. ...

There is much to respond to in a comment left by David Anderson (Executive Director for Higher Education at the Association of American Publishers) on Nicole Allen’s recent HuffPo article College Textbooks: Do You Get What You Pay For, but I’ll focus on one claim. He writes, “While to an OER advocate faculty are mere pawns to their agenda, to publishers, faculty are critical partners in academic success.” The overwhelming majority of OER advocates are faculty, and they have become OER advocates for two reasons. One reason is the incredibly high prices of the textbooks and other materials produced by commercial publishers, and the deleterious effect on student outcomes created when students cannot afford their course materials. Publishers may eventually respond to this problem by dropping their prices to reasonable rates as he indicates they are beginning to do. ...

I know I’ve written about efficacy, student success per dollar, and related topics before, but my mind continues to be drawn back to the issue. I can’t adequately express how important I believe this conversation to be. Consider the following fictitious scenario: A pharmaceutical company is developing a drug to cure a rare form cancer. During the clinical trials the drug eliminates cancer in 35% of the patients in the treatment group. The drug is hailed as a breakthrough, promising a second chance to the million people worldwide with the cancer. The company takes the drug to market as a pill to be taken once daily for six months, with a six-month supply costing $100,000. Individuals and governments accuse the company of price gouging and insurance companies refuse to cover the exorbitant cost of the drug, but the company holds firm on the price. Of the million people who need the drug, 1700 are able to purchase it during the first year of availability. 35% of the 1700 purchasers - 595 people - beat their cancer. ...

For almost three years Lumen Learning has been helping faculty, departments, and entire degree programs adopt OER in place of expensive commercial textbooks. In addition to saving students enormous amounts of money we’ve helped improve the effectiveness of courses we’ve supported, as we’re demonstrating in publications in peer-reviewed journals co-authored both with faculty from our partner schools and other researchers. We’re making great friendships along the way. It’s been absolutely amazing. ...

Back in June I had the great privilege of speaking at the Mountain Heights Academy Convocation Ceremony. This is largely the talk I to gave, except a few paragraphs at the end I skipped over as I ran out of time. I’ve been speaking about this theme more and more recently, starting with my 2013 AECTx talk You Have Superpowers. I can’t talk about it often enough. MHA Convocation Address Abravanel Hall June 3, 2015 ...

This week a coalition of almost 100 organizations, including Lumen Learning, called on President Obama to take executive action to ensure that publicly funded educational resources are open educational resources. To my mind this is one of the most blindingly obvious policy changes needed in Washington - on par with other desperately needed changes like campaign finance reform. Rather than re-explain why this is true, I’ll reuse this brief video I made for Open Education Week several years ago. In the video I explain why all publicly funded educational resources should be openly licensed. The video uses research articles as its primary example, but the logic applies to videos, textbooks, curricula, simulations, and all other educational materials created with public funds. ...